Risk analysis methodology prioritization of safety investments - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
risk analysis methodology prioritization of safety
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Risk analysis methodology prioritization of safety investments - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Jun 30, 2023 117 likes •308 views

Risk analysis methodology prioritization of safety investments METHOD, ACCIDENTOLOGY & STATEMENTS USE CASE ON CROSSING LEVEL FREDERIC HENON IRSC 2019 FIRST STEP : METHOD 5 CR1 CR2 1 0,2 CR1 CR2 CR3 CR4 CR3 CR4 CR1: risks

slide-1
SLIDE 1

METHOD, ACCIDENTOLOGY & STATEMENTS USE CASE ON CROSSING LEVEL

Risk analysis methodology prioritization of safety investments

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-2
SLIDE 2

FIRST STEP : METHOD

CR1 CR2 CR3 CR4 CR1: risks with a low level of liability from the railway undertaking are weighted by a factor of Y = 0,2 CR2: safety at work (and road drivers safety) are equally weighted: Y = 1 (SNCF choice) CR3: risks of rail transport passenger is also weighted Y = 1 CR4: risks of "uninvolved" third parties are weighted by a factor of Y = 5

5 1 0,2

CR1 CR3 CR4 CR2 FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-3
SLIDE 3

AVERSION TO RISK

Accidents with very large damage are perceived more strongly than several small accidents, although resulting the same number of victims : 1 accident x 10 victims ≠ 10 accidents x 1 victim It is therefore justified to give more “weight” to these accidents. Risk aversion is characterized by a stronger weighting of serious consequences as these accidents are less well accepted. Operational application use an aversion factor Z : Z = c , c being the number of victims. Example: c = 5 Victims, Aversion factor ϕ =2.23, Risk-averse weighted consequences = 11.2 weighted victims Characterization of accidents (according to "EBP" method):

  • Equivalent victims (EV) =

Nbr killed + 0.1 serious injured + 0.01 lightly injured

  • Catégories of victims:

factor Y (0.2 for suicides, 1 for others victims)

  • Risk aversion weighting: Z = √ VE (for VE > 1)

Weighted Victims : WV = VE * Y* Z

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-4
SLIDE 4

OBJECTIVES OF THE "USE CASE » ON LEVEL CROSSINGS

  • Sources :

SNCF Réseau ISCHIA base (accidents) 2007-2018, SNCF Réseau descriptive base of infrastructure ARMEN (LC Park)

THE STUDY WAS LED ON 2060 ACCIDENTS WITHIN 11 YEARS, CONCERNING 12500 PUBLIC LC (PASSIVE AND ACTIVE) OF THE FRENCH NETWORK THREE STEPS

  • 1. Define a method to enlarge the notion of victim (Weighted Victims WV)
  • 2. Analyze the characteristics of these accidents

3.Propose a cost-effective method and argumentation for the implementation of risk control measures on level crossings (LC)

2 FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-5
SLIDE 5

SECOND PART : ACCIDENTOLOGY & STATEMENTS

PASSIVE LC

4 BARRIERS LC

2 BARRIERS LC WITH TRAFFIC ISLAND SEPARATOR 2 BARRIERS LC

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-6
SLIDE 6

ACCIDENTOLOGY & STATEMENTS

LC type 1 acc. every WV aver./acc. WV/LC/y Passive LC 188 ys 0,28 1,5.E-03 2 barriers LC 109 ys 0,33 3,0. E-03 2 barriers LC with traffic island separator 43 ys 0,32 7,6. E-03 4 barriers LC 40 ys 0,32 8,0. E-03

3 types of accidents on LC: Clashes against people, 9% of accidents, 0,75 killed/accident Collisions against vehicles, 52% of accidents, 0,2 killed/accident Suicides, 39% of accidents, 0,9 killed/accident Collision accidents are spread as : 40% inattention of the car driver, lack of visibility, surprise … 40% non compliance of the road traffic signage: forcing, zig zaging passage … 20% vehicule blocked on the LC: vehicule that stalls, which blocks behind a raw … Statistical repartition of accidents (without suicides)

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-7
SLIDE 7

IMPACT OF MOMENTUM

Accidentology increases with the “momentum” of the LC

(momentum = rail traffic X road traffic / day) 23% of highest momentum LC are causing 68% of victims. Global accidentology (Aver. Nbr WV/LC/year) is spread as :

WITHOUT SUICIDES MOMENTUM RANGES 1-100 101-1 000 1 001- 5 000 5 001- 25 000 25 001- 125 000 > 125 000

2 BARRIERS LC

4,32E-05 4,77E-04 1,08E-03 2,15E-03 8,19E-03 1,32E-02

2 BARRIERS LC WHIT ISLAND SEPARATOR

  • 2,67E-05

3,67E-03 1,39E-02

4 BARRIERS LC

  • 6,49E-05

6,25E-04 5,75E-03 1,11E-02

PASSIVE LC

1,43E-03 2,21E-03 4,09E-03

  • AVERAGE

9,60E-04 7,48E-04 1,11E-03 2,09E-03 7,71E-03 1,25E-02

For the highest momentum, for one LC, they may be one Weighted Victim every 70years

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-8
SLIDE 8

THIRD PART : EVALUATION OF MEASURES

HOW SHOULD WE INVEST IN LEVEL CROSSINGS? ALAIN AUTRUFFE – SNCF RESEAU – ILCAD2019

IDENTIFIED MEASURES Passive LC : Simple deletion of LC (ie without bridge) Transformation to active LC ACTIVE LC : Deletion of 2-barrier LC Transformation 2 to 4-barrier LC Equipment with OD (obstacle detection) Equipment with crossing radar 4-barrier stickers ( “BRAKABLE BARRIER”) Flashing red lamps with LED’s + on-ground signaling LED lighting barriers Video-protection with prosecution or not Traffic separator Island (2-barrier)

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-9
SLIDE 9

ILLUSTRATIONS

OBSTACLE DETECTOR VIDEO PROTECTION

CROSSING RADAR

FLASHING LED LIGHT

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-10
SLIDE 10

CALCULATION METHOD

Coasts : equivalent annual costs (per LC)

  • initial cost of allocated investment based on duration of use and inflationrate
  • Costs for operatiING and maintenance (of themeasure)
  • Potential revenues provided by the measure

Efficiency (per LC)

  • Estimation of weighted victims (WV) “saved” per year, thanks to the measure perLC

Coast-efficiency ratio :

  • Annual expense to save 1 WV per LC (per year)

Nota: "Interesting" investment if ratio < 10 M€/WV/year, "rationnable" investment if ratio < 20M€/WV/year

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-11
SLIDE 11

PASSIVE LC RESULTS

PASSIVE LC (momentums) Cost- Efficiency (M€/WV/LC/Y) 1-100 101-1 000 1 001- 5 000

NUMBER OF LC

1341 363 26

SIMPLE DELETION

5,1 3,1 1,6

TRANSFORMATION INTO 2 BARRIERS LC

18 14,4 8,3

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-12
SLIDE 12

TWO-BARRIERS LC RESULTS

TWO BARRIERS LC (ranked with momentum) 101-1000 1001-5000 5001-25000 25001-125000 >125000

NUMBER of LC

1915 2047 2108 1516 489

NUMBER LC WITH ISLAND TRAFFIC SEPARATOR

7 7 34 77 108

DELETION (BRIDGE)

495 314 183 62,8 40,6

TRANSFORMATION INTO 4-B

47,3 31,5 19,7 22,9

OBSTACLE DETECTION

481 230 119 34,1 20,5

CROSSING RADAR

596 263 108,4 3,4 2,1

OBSTACLE DETECTION + RADAR

606 285 138 28,5 17,3

LED BARRIERS

98,6 43,6 21,9 5,7 3,6

LED SIGN LIGHTS + ON- GROUNDSIGNALING

123 54,1 27,2 7,1 4,4

LED SIGN LIGHTS + GROUND SIGNALING + LED BARRIERS

117 51,7 26,0 6,8 4,2

VIDEOPROTECTION WITHOUT PROSECUTION

210 92,9 46,7 12,3 7,6

VIDEOPROTECTION WITH PROSECUTION

335 148 63,3 2,1 1,3

TRAFFIC SEPARATOR ISLANDS

7,0

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-13
SLIDE 13

FOUR-BARRIERS LC RESULTS

TWO BARRIERS LC COST / EFFICIENCY (M€/WV/LC/Y) 1001-5000 5001-25000 25001-125000 >125000 NUMBER of LC

14 32 214 340

STICKERS on exit barriers

49,7 5,2 0,6 0,3

OBSTACLE DETECTION

4 579 426 51,0 26,2

CROSSING RADAR

5 844 497 6,5 3,4

LED BARRIERS

725 75,3 8,2 4,2

LED SIGN LIGHTS WITH GROUNDSIGNALING

901 93,5 10,2 5,3

LED LIGHTS SIGNS + GROUND SIGNALING +LED BARRIERS

860 89,3 9,7 5,1

VIDÉOPROTECTION WITHOUT PROSECUTION

1 894 197 21,4 11,1

VIDÉOPROTECTION WITH PROSECUTION

3 043 269 3,7 1,9

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-14
SLIDE 14

SUMMARY

Cost/efficiency is high even excessive for low-momentum’s level crossings. Some low-cost investments improve road drivers visibility and are cost-efficient. Deletion of LC eliminates the risk, but low cost-efficiency. Obstacle detectors has a low cost-efficiency (expensive and prevents 40% of collisionsonly). Crossing radars are expensive and have limited efficiency. Videoprotection is

  • Affordable and efficient, especially in the case ofprosecution
  • Offers extensive features: fight vandalism, better knowledge on road traffic, detection ofnear-

accidents and help enquiries upon an accident.

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-15
SLIDE 15

NEXT STEPS ON THE USE CASE

Evaluate cost/efficiency of road traffic equipment, to provide a global decision-making guide for risks managers Exemple: lighting warning road sign (approximatively located 300 m ahead of thecrossing)

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-16
SLIDE 16

NEXT STEPS FOR DECISION MAKERS

Evaluate cost/efficiency for all « means of actions for more safety »

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

Individual reliability measures + management

  • Risk-based approach to feed the

monitoring and supervision activities, including non-technical skills (HF)

  • Training / Simulations for

“ processes seldom used” e.g.: “calm” program, auto-check, etc.

Help for operators to perform their actions with more reliability

e.g. : check lists, simplification of documents + digitised (& interlocked processes in cat.5) e.g.: double-checks between 2 operators, independent test procedures , validation procedures, etc.

Technical appliances for alerting operators irregularities

e.g.: ATP, dead-man device Automation , etc.

Technical appliances as safety loops

e.g.: flashing light, audible warnings, etc.

Reduction

  • f risks

exposure

e.g.: decrease

  • the number of closed markers, -
  • the failures of infrastructure,
  • the failures of Rolling stock.
  • automation

Independent backloops

Means of actions for more safety

1 2 3 4

5

6

slide-17
SLIDE 17

NEXT STEPS FOR DECISION MAKERS

Example for SNCF NETWORK PROGRAM « SAFETY TO SYSTEM INVESTMENTS »

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019

slide-18
SLIDE 18

THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION !

FREDERIC HENON – IRSC 2019